Hillary: Removing Assad in Syria Is Top Priority

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Because removing Saddam in Iraq went so swimmingly.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.678985

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Is this even a credible source?

Haaretz is like the Israeli New York Times.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Is this even a credible source?

It has ~6% market share (and falling), and has been criticized for its politicized agenda and for being more concerned with its international audience rather than its domestic one. To say it is the "Israeli" NYT is blatantly incorrect.

Regardless of the credibility or not, that doesn't matter to our good friend the OP here, who will interpret anything Clinton says as being part of what he perceives as her corporate, neoliberal, warmongering agenda.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Reuters says the same thing, guys.

Presidential candidate Clinton says removing Assad in Syria is No. 1 priority
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/05/us-usa-election-clinton-syria-idUSKCN0RZ1C020151005

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

So basically a continuity of the existing policy? Quelle horreur!

It's a hell of lot more of a nuanced position than is being suggested here.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

This line was present in both articles (which OP conveniently left out):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't want to point out anything that challenged the narrative, would we?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This line was present in both articles (which OP conveniently left out):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't want to point out anything that challenged the narrative, would we?

We're not going to diplomatically remove Assad. And she called for no fly zones where Russian planes are flying, which is too much of "stupid stuff" for Obama.

[OSR stands with Israel]

No Defeating ISIS should be the first priority

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This line was present in both articles (which OP conveniently left out):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't want to point out anything that challenged the narrative, would we?

We're not going to diplomatically remove Assad. And she called for no fly zones where Russian planes are flying, which is too much of "stupid stuff" for Obama.

Of course, Hilldawg of War is coming, she's getting her brass breastplate and helmet with horns ready!

You're playing a game of military chess with Russia now. Russia is utterly determined to use military force to keep Assad in power. That's not a secret argument for or against anything, just a statement of fact.

[SATW]

Is this even a credible source?

yes, it's a credible source. Haaretz is a major publication in Israel and is a well respected center-left media source.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

No Defeating ISIS should be the first priority

[ElectionsGuy]

This is why Lindsey Graham and Dick Cheney say they would rather have Clinton's foreign policy than Paul's.

[Mehmentum]

There are two reasons why removing Assad should be priority #1 in Syria.

a).  In order to defeat ISIS, we're going to need Sunnis to turn against them en-masse.  This isn't going to happen as long as there are oppressive governments in power in Damascus and Baghdad.

b).  If ISIS falls and Assad remains standing, Assad is essentially guaranteed survival.  The reverse is not true.

[Lief 🗽]

Once again, "anti-war" types coming out of the woodwork to support a bloody dictator.

[Torie]

Who and what is to replace Assad if he is removed? This question is one that has really not been asked enough in the past in the region - obviously. While a bullet was ultimately dodged in Egypt, in Iraq and Lybia matters devolved into anarchy, and Syria in the wash. Isn't the most obvious replacement for Assad at this point, ISIS?

[Blue3]

Because removing Saddam in Iraq went so swimmingly.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.678985

Good.

It's what I've been saying we should do since 2011.

There are two reasons why removing Assad should be priority #1 in Syria.

a).  In order to defeat ISIS, we're going to need Sunnis to turn against them en-masse.  This isn't going to happen as long as there are oppressive governments in power in Damascus and Baghdad.

b).  If ISIS falls and Assad remains standing, Assad is essentially guaranteed survival.  The reverse is not true.

Exactly.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Once again, "anti-war" types coming out of the woodwork to support a bloody dictator.

Do you think the Iraq war was a good thing? Just because we don't support some 2 trillion war against a country means that we're fans of their leader.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If you go after Assad, that's good news for ISIS.

[Oakvale]

Increasingly desperate, I see, Jfern.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Increasingly desperate, I see, Jfern.

I posted this over a month ago.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Increasingly desperate, I see, Jfern.

We have people in this thread accusing Haaretz of making sh**t up and others equating believing ISIS is a more immediate threat than Assad with supporting the dictator.   Jfern is not the one being desperate.

[RFayette]

Removing Assad should be a top priority.  Clinton is right once again on foreign policy (I disagree with her on a lot of other things, but she's dead-on here).

[bobloblaw]

What an idiot. Guess what removing Assad is a top priority for ISIS too.

[Kingpoleon]

My foreign policy plan:

1. Diplomats convince Assad to step down in favor of a perfect and uncorrupt democracy.
2. This democracy unites despite religious tensions with free voting during which all accept the results, including recognizing Al Gore as the rightful winner in 2000.
3. ISIS surrenders diplomatically.
4. Rainbows & Unicorns.
5. World Peace.

[kansasdemocrat]

Is this even a credible source?

yes, it's a credible source. Haaretz is a major publication in Israel and is a well respected center-left media source.

Exactly. Not a credible source.